I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.You can follow along, if you want...

Thursday, May 29, 2014

COTW: The sandbox

My post on the 24th looking back at the "Peace dec" has generated a huge discussion that's been really interesting to read. Thank you so much to everyone who has participated in that! I myself have been trying to stay out of the discussion because I find that when I get involved in such discussions directly, suddenly the discussion becomes about "Jester said X" as a thing unto itself... rather than what Jester said.(1) I'll have more to say about that specifically on Saturday.

But I can't resist pointing to two particular comments on that post that beautifully encapsulated an idea that's been kicking around my head since the whole Erotica 1 fiasco a couple of months ago. Speaking about the peace dec mechanic, one anonymous commenter said (edited slightly):

The peace dec IS PvP! - one group of players acting on another. It's just not the sort of PvP that you like.

And another(?) said (also edited slightly):

Peace Deccing actually is the ultimate PvP against PvP-minded players. It hits them right where it hurts - and completely non-consensually. Thus it fits perfectly within the ethos of EVE.

YES! Thank you! That's a really lovely way of putting it. And reading these two comments, it finally occurred to me what kind of sandbox EVE Online is. EVE isn't a PvP sandbox. It's a griefing sandbox.

And on and on and on and on and on, throughout any aspect of the game you care to name. EVE Online is a griefing sandbox. It's all PvP if you care to look at it that way. It's the only shared experience that every single one of us have.

(1) Examples: people saying that Jester must be seriously proposing peace decs even though I said twice I wasn't, or people saying that this is yet more proof that Jester hates non-consensual PvP even though I've said at least ten times this isn't true. Sometimes, I have no idea who this Jester person is that people talk about.

Jester disregards all the people that solo pvp.Jester disregards all the people that play in tournaments.Jester disregards all the small gangs that fight outnumbered. Contrary to his opinion you CAN pvp in EVE without griefing anyone. FW is a living proof of that. ps: "Big miners grief little miners." Say what now?

As of today, 5/29/14, if you look up “Griefer” on Wikipedia this is how the article ends:"Eve Online has incorporated activities typically considered griefing as part of the gameplay mechanism. Corporate spying, theft, scams, gate-camping, and PVP on non-PVP players are all part of their gaming experience."

Jester’s post expands that typical notion of “griefing” even further to include most any sort of Eve competition (both in game and out) in a very amusing way.

In a game where loss is supposed to have meaning it’s just flat difficult to see how player competition isn’t going to create a grief tinged loser and delight tinted winner. In as much as Eve is a *competitive* game, “griefing” in this broad sense appears to be Eve’s beating heart. I’m OK with this.

Big miners and early miners sweep through belts in high-sec, cherry-picking the good stuff and leaving behind the junk ores. By the time the USTZ logs in, if there's any more left to be mined, it's not worth much.

And I'm afraid I struggled not to laugh -- and failed -- when you said there's no griefing in FW. There are some gentlemen here from Dirt Nap Squad that would like to have a word with you.

How is mining ore before others griefing? I think the correct term for that is competition. As for FW yes there is some griefing. There is also a lot (if not a majority) of consensual fights (not necessarly fair).

@ Anonymous May 29, 2014 at 4:13 PMHow is “competitive” mining not griefing? The very fact that EU time zone miners cherry pick ‘roid reveals malevolent willingness to leave only junk ‘roid for beleaguered US time zone miners. Not very sporting of them.

I have an example of miner to miner griefing. Ice mining. Multiboxing 10 to 15 ice miners, with an Orca, and a freighter in a mining fleet, and a couple of these fleets moving from belt to belt can mine an ice field in 30 minutes or so. That's the griefing from big miner to little miner. The little miner resorts to a different kind of griefing, which is bumping the big miner's Orca and the freighter. So yes, Ripard's right, it's griefers all the way down.

Which is my pet theory as to why Inferno did so well with the bounty system initially. It was basically sold to us as a way for non-combat players could get back at combat players for griefing them. PvEers and Industrialists finally had a way to fight back...or so they were told.

After everyone figured out that it had too many loopholes to escape it, they gave up on EVE again.

You know what got me the most? When the new War Dec changes hit... and the Goons found out what it was like to be on the receiving side of real griefing... and then cried and cried... until CCP failed their own vision and took away the power they had finally given to of the rest of us to actually fight back.

CCP, if you actually wanted Good to fight against Evil... you had it... and you caved to the Goons like a cheap hooker to the flash of a twenty dollar bill.

"So to answer the Blog Banter question, "What's on the other side of that plateau?", this is it. We are on the other side of the plateau. We as a playerbase have chased off any decent human being that wants to play. We have distilled ourselves down into everything that is wrong with humanity and convinced ourselves that it is all some kind of elaborate inside joke. We are what is wrong with the game, and the worst part of it is that we hold CCP hostage. Every time they try to expand the game or draw in new players, we create a scandal to sabotage their efforts. I hope CCP can find a way to get away from depending on EVE as their main source of revenue, because that's the only way EVE will ever get better and grow."

5 months later, subscriptions are dwindling, eventually, and there's no reason why they should climb back.

I had missed the origional post... first off, I agree with one of the first commenters, i would pay real money to see this in the game. as stated I am a carebear at heart, building the sandcastles in the sandbox is my kind of fun, but I do have a sadistic streak, and my god the tears would be tremendous, continous, and tasty. as for these quotes... I dont know that I agree 100% that it is griefing, unless griefing is defined in such wide terms that most of society involves it to some extent. The only difference is that there tend to be more consequences for violence than in this game. (This is a qualified statement exactly because violence does still happen, corporate or not)

Eve is a game where we can to an extent choose our fights, at least the ones we start. In that case it is human nature to use overwhelming force. (that is when the chips are down most people prefer to have a bigger pool of reserve to draw against.)

From my experience (and therefore forming my definition of the word) griefing is something done despite cost (in any terms) for the purpose of causing emotional damage to someone... To take an ESO example jester posted not too long ago, the griefers are the ones in that dungon killing all the spiders just to keep people from being able to continue the quest. The group that has already maguffined one spider and now needs parts are not griefers. they are there for a reason, part collection. The fact that their killing the spiders makes it hard to impossible for people trying to tame one to actually tame it is not important to them. their internal goal is.

To be clear, I am saying that I dont think that derifing pleasure from the tears of others is something that can be used as a sole definition of griefing. it is the lack of other reasoning. Someone creating or running a business may be very happy when one of their competitors cannot keep up and go under, but that joy is part due to the fact that they are still there. Their success plays into the joy, and if both companies went under they would not be happy. a griefer would.

"... unless griefing is defined in such wide terms that most of society involves it to some extent."

Ask the hotels complaining about AirBnB, the cabs about Uber, the pizza shop about the competition opening across the street... yes, everyone complains about the unfairness of competition when it affects their income. We all want to restrict services in the market where we sell them, even though we want lots of competition in all other markets.

Again: if this was implemented, even with ridiculous prices like a plex for every hundred players in the targeted corp... I can absolutely guarantee an end to the goon domination of null sec. I would most definitely contribute five plexes a month to make it impossible for them to defend their systems :)

Jester I have been reading your blog for six months now, I am an avid watcher of the EVE metagaming and politicking, but you have nailed 90% of the reason most rational MMO players avoid EVE like the plague.

EVE is a giant griefing simulator. I don't play EVE because it is a giant griefing simulator. I don't mind losing pixles, I laugh it off when I lose a 40 hour old geared to the gills day Z character and go start from scratch, but I have no interest is trying to play a game like EVE.

To me EVE is only amazing on a meta level. The minuet to minuet game play mostly sucks and the player interaction mechanics are purposely made to be exploitable.

The sad fact is this is online gaming as people are ALWAYS going to leap at any opportunity to be dicks and make profit. I don't know if any of you played Runescape back about 2004-2005 but back then I learned exactly how the sand box pvper mid works.

There was a way to make runes (consumables required for all magic) very quickly that involved running through low level pvp areas. So crafters would run carrying almost nothing of value to craft runes. The bags they carried required half an hour to an hour of grinding to gain and were destroyed on death. Needless to say huge hordes of pvpers would be on every server just to kill crafters, for almost zero profit, just to force them to grind new bags.

If you geared up and tried to kill them they would just use health items and walk out of the pvp area. Its human nature and sound military stratagy, prey on the weak and avoid the strong, too bad it makes a completely shit system to base pvp gameplay on.

My coworkers are hardcore gamers and like *reading* about EVE, in sort of a "look at the trainwreck" kind of way. They flat out won't play it. They were shocked to find out that EVE is my MMO of choice. I don't fit their profile of what they think EVE players are like.

“...supposed to be unforgiving. The original designers played a lot of Ultima Online, which was a fantastic sandbox game, and it allowed you to be very devious and very immoral in the way that you played. What they loved about it is that player killers, the griefers – people who just went around and killed other people – became so unpopular that other people banded together. Good started fighting evil, and without true evil you can’t have true good.”

I repeat... ...that other people banded together. Good started fighting evil, and without true evil you can’t have true good.” we all need to really think about THAT for a bit... and how and why it is the shaping ideal behind CCPs creation of and Long Term vision for EVE... the vision they started with, and the overriding vision that I feel is still their ideal goal.

Not valuing PvE...valuing null over Hi and Lowsec...seeming to be forcing players into groups...giving null players so much power and ISK...and a vision that seems to be forcing all playstyles to a nullcentric playstyle...

I too was struck by the line, "...other people banded together. Good started fighting evil, and without true evil you can’t have true good."

The problem as I see it is, the very mechanics they created to allow and support the "...very devious and very immoral..." gameplay that created their True Evil (and that would hopefully create real emergent Good vs Evil gameplay) has also empowered the CFC and the other null coalitions to exert so much control over the game and meta game that

(1) they are able to choke the Good Alliances to death in the cradle as twere or,

(2) those who would stand as Good Guys are either in Hi and Lowsec where the mechanics and available ISK faucets do not lend themselves to large Alliances of players working together against The Empires of Evil.

That can possibly only happen in null and in null they end up playing the same game as Real Evil and being... corrupted(?) by the very same mechanics of greed and power. This tends to nullifies any 'Good' competition...

I wonder if we, and CCP, are trapped by the mechanics of nullsec and the desire to create Real Evil and Real Good.

UO's mechanics were much more simple. If you killed another player who wasn't flagged as a PKer, then you would get flagged as a PKer. Then hunters could go hunt them down freely and guards near the cities would attack them as well if they entered. The more innocents you killed, the further down the PK hole you went. My memory from then is hazy but I'm fairly sure that the only or at least primary way to lose your PK status was to kill other PKers until your standing was in the positive.

In EVE, what exactly IS a PKer? There's security status, personal/corp/alliance standings with different rules in high, low and nullsec, ect. EVE didnt' start out completely dominated by NBSI, it simply migrated toward it over time because the mechanics overwhelmingly support that type of play.

If you translated UO rules over to EVE, then it wouldn't matter what sec the system was you were in, attacking someone would flag you as a PKer, allowing you to be killed by anyone, anytime, anywhere. You couldn't lose this status by ratting or spending isk on tags for sec, you'd have to kill other "red players" at some ratio (10 reds for each innocent killed or whatever) while avoiding harming any more innocents.

Instead what system does EVE have?

NPC guards in civilized space that are very easy to bypass for any criminal in many ships. They also ignore pods.

If you go NRDS instead of anything else, you have to maintain giant convoluted standings lists for corps/alliances/individuals. When you hit the cap on the number of individual standings? Tough luck.

Mechanics to allow players who would be PKers in UO, to pay a small fee to turn any group of players they want into legal targets.. basically reversing the situation as it would exist in UO.

Anon @ 10:35: Exactly. For example: Say I decide to go after some guy who tried and failed to gank my industrial. I blow up his ship in high sec. He now has a kill right on me, which makes it much easier for him to gank my industrial. So if I'm an industrial pilot, and especially a freighter or jump freighter pilot, what's my incentive to fight back?

Ólafsson's statement concerns an ideal, a vision held by the creators of EVE. Not just for game development, but for the *players*. CCP has through its evolution proudly selected for griefers and celebrates them, but a stubborn majority of just-plain-folks persists in subscribing, and these relative lambs keep bringing in the lion's share of the revenue.

It's good to see that if CCP still isn't quite sure what to do with us, there are rumblings acknowledging that they must do something *for* us. If their best answer really is to nudge us out into PvPLand, though, it's not going to turn out well for anyone.

Let's take it a step further. One kind of PvP coddled by CCP is simply bullying. It's the strong (those with anonymity, time, SP or other numbers on their side) controlling the play of the weak (or new, or solo) with very few rules in the way. It's a libertarian ideal, and like real-world libertarianism, pretends to see virtue in robbing others.

CCP has taken their own medicine, to be fair, and happily relegated themselves to a smallish customer base that likes or puts up with that stuff. Now that they are trying to talk us (or themselves) into changing, how ready are they, really, to subject their dogma of nonregulation to hard questions? If it *has* come down to grow-or-die, will they put their legendary diplomatic skills to work on their diehard HTFU base?

Will they grit their teeth and ignore some of the whining of their former pets who suddenly don't like their *own* play styles disturbed?

The near-complete lack of regulation vs hurting others, as long as it is done for profit is libertarianism precisely as it is being implemented by today's profoundly conservative American government. They may not understand libertarianism, but they understand all of it that interests them.

The result is the concentration of most wealth in just a few hands, with the rank and file regularly harvested or driven out--much as we see in EVE today.

"libertarianism precisely as it is being implemented by today's profoundly conservative American government"

HA! Must not be the same American government I live under - the one I'm familiar with is increasingly intrusive, increasingly regulatory, and increasingly liberal; every time I turn around it seems like my taxes go up and my freedoms go down.

Wrong America. The US is the one trying its best to deregulate industry and implement theocracy in the name of freedom while intruding on the liberty and security of individuals--again the name of freedom. Don't let the same-sex marriage fool you; the US is becoming the land where corporations are people, and people aren't.

Those of you that seriously think the US or any other western democracy is libertarian, becoming a theocracy, or taking away peoples' freedom need a serious reality check. Try living in an actual theocracy for a while.

Griefing IS PvP. There are two kinds of PvP in video gaming: realistic PvP (also known as griefing), and arena-style PvP. EvE is focused on realistic PvP, except for tournaments, which are arena style. Your interest in tournament play seems to have confused you--in EVE, arena style PvP is the exception, not the rule. Most fights are uneven.

Peace decs are a form of griefing, and therefore are consistent with the ethos of EVE. Your suggestion for Peace decs looks pretty good, it needs some minor tweaking but overall it favors blobbing and griefing, just like every other aspect of EVE.

So yes, EVE is a griefing sandbox, which means that EVE is indeed a true PvP sandbox. (Obviously, a realistic pvp sandbox is more of a sandbox than an unrealistic arena-style PvP sandbox, so a true PvP sandbox is exactly equal to a griefing sandbox).

I don't think there was any dichotomy implied; rather it was a specification. As you stated, griefing is PvP; by referring to EVE as a griefing sandbox, Jester is stating the type of PvP favored by the game, not claiming that it isn't a PvP game at all. It's just one type of PvP is encouraged above all others.

It is still incorrect. You're basically arguing that he didn't really mean the very simple and short thing he said there, and that in fact he meant its opposite.

This is quite ironic, when one considers the footnote: "people saying that Jester must be seriously proposing peace decs even though I said twice I wasn't, or people saying that this is yet more proof that Jester hates non-consensual PvP even though I've said at least ten times this isn't true. Sometimes, I have no idea who this Jester person is that people talk about."

and also: "It's the only shared experience that every single one of us have. "

I nominate another shared experience: Jester's detractors and his defenders share a common belief: Jester says the opposite of what he means.

what I find odd is that people don't see a peace dec as non consensual. yes, it is a way to stop someone attacking you, but its also a way for industrialists to grief the pvp crowd. this in the end is what kills the idea. those pvp'ers would rage quit... and I suspect that they are a large enough portion of the player base that they cant be ignored. Bullys, idiots and assholes also tend to react worse to being fed their own medicine (from my experience) than anyone they tend to pick on. the tough veneer is hard, but often paper thin.

You missed the point - the peace dec is most definitely intended as non-consensual. However, it was not proposed as a way to get one group of players to stop attacking another, as it was never intended to be implemented as an actual feature. It is a thought exercise to put the shoe on the other foot so to speak; i.e., to make one side consider the other's perspective. Making those PvP'ers consider that they would quit under these circumstances is exactly the intent.

It's not as contradictory as you seem to think. It's the same as when describing a color, stating "it's not red, it's crimson." Yes, crimson is a form of red, but it is a more precise description. This form of specification is common, and does not imply any sort of dichotomy or exclusion.

It's funny you mention Rich station traders grief poor station traders..I was doing some market PvP when the Gecko's came out.. and there were the usual suspects doing the 0.10 raises.. and I'll always go up by a mil.. or 5mil.. drives em nuts.. anyway I did that for a few days, and then I logged in the next.. I had set up a Regional Buy Order for them.. he sold me a single gecko at every station in the whole region, including the parts that were in Lowsec.

There are players (note the plural) that do nothing but fap to popping noobs in 1.0 starter systems, and then grind incursions to get isk to buy back sec to do it again. There is no reasonable solution to this. Even if the non-fucktard pilots in eve banded together like CCP Retard says happened in UO, we'd all have to sacrifice our own sec to take these clowns on. CCP even directly encourages this (obviously along with other similar behavior) with tags for sec. This is what CCP wants....even if it kills the game. Even as it strangles new pilots at birth and chases them off to other games. The entire game mechanics are biased to the gankers....I just don't see CCP changing that...deal with it.

This is why the War Dec changes, and change back were such a shit blow... if they had left the changes the way they rolled out, I would be very interested in where things would be now for many griefer corps and the griefers from the null alliances that prey in hisec.

CCP hands Concord class ships to players with high standings, and more importantly, zero ganks on THE ACCOUNT, for the last year. Players can only use them to shoot at bad people in high sec using a Concord class ship, and have to abide by very strict "white hat" standards, which would have to be worked out.

Further, if you gank someone in high sec, you are -10 for one month, regardless of what you do to get rid of that standings. You also cannot dock at any high sec station, and any Orca type ship you use to get a new ship also goes -10 for a month, and can't dock.

You are a white hat, and as soon as you get into a Concord ship, you get an instant heads up on the location of bad people, and you hunt them down and kill them, repeatedly, until the one month -10 is burned off.

Destroy the griefing gameplay, at least the ganking portion.

This of course won't happen, because as it has been pointed out, some or many CCP employees revel in the sociopathic behaviour they have enabled.

"CCP hands Concord class ships to players with high standings, and more importantly, zero ganks on THE ACCOUNT, for the last year. Players can only use them to shoot at bad people in high sec using a Concord class ship, and have to abide by very strict "white hat" standards, which would have to be worked out."

That certainly would make me come back to the game, LOL. Just throw something more in: for the right price, give the "Righteous Knights" a tool to track asset transfers, so they could hit griefers where it hurts -their mains!

But now let's get real: CCP and the Powers That Be would never do anything that saved EVE by changing its nature and/or harmed the Powers That Be. Better die as a griefing sandbox than live as "the ultimate sci-fi universe"... which is a bloody shame.

I assume that this post is mostly hyperbole, and I enjoy it. That said, I lose ships to griefers, and tend to laugh myself. I guess I am weird in that I appreciate a good gank or hunt. I do remember losing some ships early in the game and being angry about it, but most of the time I put myself in the positions where I die now. I think they should add a line to box that says something like "A good attitude towards death goes a long way."

I love when people try to make sweeping statements about "oh now -this- is the reason the game is dying and people are leaving" or "this is the reason no one new joins EVE" it just cracks me up. We all have our own bone to pick with the game, that's granted. There's as many game-killing theories and rants as there are bittervets.

I will say this: What chased me away was the fact that while I enjoyed the game, I found myself having to sink consistently large amounts of time to derive the sort of enjoyment I craved. Game sessions were usually 2-4 hours, sometimes more, and that type of commitment is something I just can't accommodate anymore. But I recognized that was a result of my style of play, I packed my bags, and moved on to greener pastures. I didn't stage some grand speech or rage thread about how the game had to be changed to make me happy.

EVE is a niche product. It appeals and repeals on the basis of the niche characteristics that define it as unique. The only reason I stay up on my EVE news is because I came to the realization that -reading- about EVE was about as much time and effort as I wanted to put into the game. And it turns out doing that is free.

Some of the comments on here are easily some of the most intelligent post I have ever read regarding the real state of the game. The fact is this game is dying, not hyperbole just facts subs are down and new player retention etc is non existent. I wonder what all the scummy losers who enjoyed preying on the weak etc will do when they turn the lights out.

Why stop at EVE? Monopoly: evil capitalist pigs set traps for the less fortunate. Those poor souls only wanted to stroll around the board and build a hotel for friends! Risk: bloodthirsty sociopaths conspire against peaceful players who are hard at work bringing Democracy to Kamchatka. Battleship: That ship was on a humanitarian mission! Bully!

Now now, everyone's been Robin Arryn every once in a while. Problem is, Sansa's got a right to build snow castles, and it's bad business to keep smashing your feet against them because it turns out she pays to build them. If you're a random little spoiled Lord Arryn, you ought to expect that big hit in your face will happen fairly soon, and you won't like it at all.

I just joined Eve in November and have a miner main account and a FW pilot that I made in January funded by the mining. I have found a small growing group to play with that has the goal of supporting many ways of playing in the sandbox and hopefully stand up to some of those that kick others sandcastles.

With that said, I don't mind nonconsensual pvp, miner has to mine and pirate has to eat. I do agree that the game does seem a bit unfairly balanced towards the pirate. There is little consequence and lower risk to a ganker (when it comes to financial loss). It seems that there is no real counter for the nonganker. Peacedec would be an option, or more serious consequences when it comes to docking in empire (on an unrelated note with my FW pilot, why the hell can I dock in empire space that is against my side XD).

One of the things that hurts Eve, in my newbie opinion, is the attitude towards those that want to bring more balance to the ganker to gankee equation. Not all of us want to do away with ganking, as that would fundamentally change what Eve is. We just want a way for castle builders to defend themselves against sand kickers.

@Andreas FioreMay 29, 2014 at 11:08 PM. When you play Risk, monopoly, or battleship, you agree to play the same game with a fair rule set. In risk if you lose a dice roll as an attacker you lose a man and as a defender you lose a man. In Eve in many cases a ganker loses a man, but the gankee loses the equivalent of 5 or 10 with no real way to retaliate. Eve promises the ability to play the game the way you want to, but in reality gives far more preferential treatment to certain kinds of play that fundamentally (but necessarily) go against others. For the continued life of Eve, something needs to be done to bring more balance to the types of play. Make the gankers have just as much risk as the ganked. That way you truly have the option to play how you want knowing that those that would disrupt your play have just as much at risk as you do.

I am afraid that you are completely right Jester, the social experiment in the sandbox has more in common with a Petri dish than a sandbox.It is time to remove the Toxic mess that has spread over the dish. Whether it is the Forums, or the Game itself, the longer you spend, and the wider you travel, amongst the decent, normal, sane people, you cannot avoid the scum infesting the dish. The nutrient favours them after all, and where others build and explore and interact in meaningful ways, the Scum just griefs and believes the dish belongs to them and they will not rest until they cover the surface and nothing remains.The only solution is to sterilise the forums and the game.Kill them with fire.CCP stop favouring them, stop feeding them, give us tools to kill them and watch them burn.Then peace will return and you can have good player interaction instead of the situation where interaction is to be avoided for new players as it leads only to their doom.

EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. CCP hf. has granted permission to Jester's Trek to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with Jester's Trek. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.